1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, determination of issues, etc.) is sufficiently reasonable as a result of determining issues in accordance with the appellate court’s methods and principles, laws, precedents, legal principles and rules of evidence based on the litigation materials and the pleading materials submitted to the appellate court citing the judgment

The reasoning for this Court concerning this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance except for an additional determination as to the matters alleged by the Plaintiff as the grounds for appeal, as stated in Paragraph 2 below, and Paragraph 3, and therefore, this Court cited this case as it is included in summary pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. (a) On the 9th instance judgment of the first instance, the part written by the court below was amended to “Agreement (No. 23)” (No. 23).

(b) Nos. 10 and 21 of the first instance judgment

2.(b)

1. The phrase “as described in the preceding”

2.(b)

(4) The description in paragraph (1) shall be written.

3. Additional determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In order for the Plaintiffs to accept the causes of the claims that the Plaintiffs constituted, such as the criteria and methods for determination, there should be proof of the facts of requirements.

The above certification cannot be ruled out on the ground of old days, cases, and the possibility and doubt alone cannot be presumed to be the fact of requirement.

B. The Defendants, as to the claim related to the claim for return of unjust enrichment on the building and site of the warehouse Dong and dormitory Dong, and the main point of the claim No. A and B, operated P by occupying and using the building and site of the dormitory Dong and the site thereof without legitimate use right. As such, the Defendants, a joint occupant, are jointly liable to pay the Plaintiffs the amount of unjust enrichment and delay damages equivalent to each rent.

The first instance court deemed that the Defendants occupied and used only a common building and site, but it was produced by operating only a joint factory in a single complex, and the dormitory building and warehouse building were not used.